Beth Dillaha: Hypocritical. Unethical. #2.

Beth Dillaha, 2007 Campaign Pledge:

“In the absence of state or City reform, I’ve implemented my own concept of campaign finance reform. ‘One voter, one contribution.’ Corporations do not have the right to vote, nor do LLC’s. They should consequently not have the right to financially influence an election or public policy in direct proportion to the size of their checkbooks. Accordingly, I will accept no corporate or LLC contributions … only individual contributions. In addition, I am placing a limit on contributions of $250 per person as opposed to $500.”

October 9, 2007: Beth Dillaha accepts $8,000 in campaign contributions from 16 companies controlled by David Strong.

The first day of qualifying for the January 29, 2008 election was October 9, 2007.

Beth Dillaha’s opponent in the January 29, 2008 election was Kit Pepper, a candidate who ran also in 2007 and who, on both occasions, committed not to accept campaign contributions from companies and held to that commitment.

Beth Dillaha accepted nearly 20% of her campaign funds from David Strong “to get elected.”

So let’s see…Beth Dillaha compromised her principles “to get elected,” running against an opponent who made the same commitment and stuck to it. Beth Dillaha sure seems awfully motivated “to get elected.” I wonder why?

Are Beth Dillaha’s actions hypocritical and unethical? Here are the definitions you need to decide.

… and what was David Strong thinking?


Comments are closed.